Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Dangerous Dogs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Porte Board of Works affirms code enforcement decision to euthanize two dogs after fatal attack
Summary
The La Porte Board of Works voted to uphold code enforcement's recommendation to euthanize two dogs after an attack that killed a neighbor's dog and injured another; the owner was not present at the appeal hearing.
The La Porte Board of Works on May 6 affirmed a code enforcement decision to euthanize two dogs involved in an attack that killed one dog and seriously injured another in a neighboring yard.
The vote followed an appeal filed by the dogs' owner; the owner did not appear at the Board of Works hearing. Jeff Batchelor, who conducted the investigation for code enforcement, told the board that five pit bulls at the property were not vaccinated or registered when the incident occurred and that two had escaped the owner's fence. Batchelor said his investigation found both of the dogs at issue participated in the attack and that he recommended euthanasia.
The decision matters because city ordinance makes owners responsible for controlling animals and allows the city to act when animals present a danger to people or other animals. Batchelor told the board that one of the attacked dogs required 11 sutures to the head, and that an 82-year-old neighbor attempted to intervene with a broom and could have been harmed.
Mayor Thomas P. Dermody and board members discussed the broader challenge of dangerous-animal cases and the limited options available to victims. Dermody noted monetary judgments are difficult to collect if owners lack insurance or assets, and that animals are legally treated as property — factors that can limit civil-recovery options even when veterinary bills are high. Batchelor said fines provided under city ordinance apply; he also said the owner subsequently registered and vaccinated the remaining three dogs.
Board members moved to affirm code enforcement's decision to euthanize the two dogs. The motion passed; spoken roll-call voting was recorded in the meeting as "Aye" and the chair declared the motion passed. The record shows the Board also discussed removal or placement options for the remaining three dogs and indicated police assistance to locate animals that may have been moved out of state.
The action taken at the hearing was a formal affirmation of code enforcement's recommendation; no indemnity or civil-judgment action was resolved at the meeting and the injured dog's owner retains the option to pursue civil remedies.
Questions about next steps for the remaining animals, and about potential criminal or civil charges, were discussed but no additional directives beyond the euthanasia affirmation and follow-up to locate relocated animals were recorded.
